So nothing about this? Feds engage in cattle rustling, assault, in Nevada

I didn't say that it did. I said that's why something the Feds were content for 20 years to chew on bureaucratically was just conveniently this year important enough to send in the cavalry to scoop up all his cattle for. Scoop up all a rancher's cattle, oh, guess what? Now he's a lot easier to get off that island of private property, turning the whole Gold Butte area into their needed impact mitigation area.

Of course, you clearly believe that Federal shit looks like chocolate cake, so I expect you to keep pinching your nose while you eat it and grin.

Then it's not relevant to Bundy's deadbeat status, just an attempt on your part to create a distraction because this thread isn't going the way you thought it would.

Bundy's deadbeat status, if you insist on calling it that, is irrelevant to the Feds sending in the troops. They had 20 years to go that route, if his nonpayment actually merited it. They didn't choose now to do it because his "crime" suddenly got that serious this month.

(A) You've never had any actual dealings with the Feds or you'd understand why things take so long
(B) You're completely ignoring the jurisdictional battle
(C) Since you're for dismantling every aspect of government anyway, you shouldn't care

A. He should have been asking them for money, it would have taken them even longer.
B. So did the Feds, apparently.
C. Since the local authorities told the Feds to GTFO and the Feds, albeit reluctantly, appear to be doing just that, I'm pleased as punch.

So you're still clueless. Just checking.

No, but it shows the motivation for the Feds to send in an army to stop one harmless old man. Did you read the part of my article where it said that one of Reid's too advisors is now in charge of BLM? It's a rhetorical question, of course you didn't. Also, since he took over on 2011, they've been taking land for development of solar panels. Do you really believe this is all a bunch of coincidences?

In the real world, if you don't pay your rent, you get evicted. If you don't make your car payments, your car is repossessed. If you don't pay your credit card bills, your credit rating tanks. I don't see you objecting to any of that.

Why the double standard?

That's not what this is about, it's about Harry Reid and government overreach.

Bingo! We have a winner! This video is the best explanation I've heard. Here is the true answer.

Whoa! So according to the BLM "land" of any type is under their control. And how they spin something is gospel. That makes me sleep better at night.

Cliven Bundy supposedly owes a million bucks in grazing fees? Well, President Obama had absolutely no problem speaking before Al Sharpton's National Action Network, and they owe two million in back taxes, which no one in the federal government seems terribly excited about collecting. The "rule of law" works very differently for people with the right political connections, doesn't it?

They're unelected, absolutely unaccountable -- yet, according to gul, garamet, Chardman, et al., we're supposed to accept every single thing this bloated, rotten, greedy, stinking chimaera does to us because it's in "our" interests -- whether it's in our interests or not.

Of course the Democrats will protect their own. That's part of their not so subliminal message - be one of us, or else pay the consequences.

To me, it's not-so-subtle evidence to support the understanding that taxation is theft, because from here it looks a whole hell of a lot like honor among thieves.

You are confused if you think this has anything to do with the real world or what actually happened. Guys like Federal Farmer and visionrazer are reactionaries. People they don't like say that Bundy should pay up, so they stake out the position that he shouldn't. It is hilarious to watch them twist in to retarded pretzels in taking on the position that opposing property rights is a libertarian stance.

You might have a point, if it weren't funded by elected representatives, overseen by an elected executive, and subject to judicial review by an independent court system. We have systems in place that can and do protect us from the dragons of your imagination.

The Federal government has no property rights.

Is any agent or employee of the Bureau of Land Management elected?

Are you?

Nah, you can keep that red herring. Fry it up and have it for breakfast.

The irony of this statement is rich.

What gives you that idea?

Not so rich as your assertion that there is any irony there.

What gives you any other idea? What does the Federal government pay for out of its own pockets? What tangible thing, in this country, is built by the hands and sweat of government employees? Other than by taking money from us, where does it get any with which to pay for anything?

Government's role falls somewhere between that of professional middleman and parasite. It builds nothing, it funds nothing, all it does is make demands the results of which, though exacted by the labor of the people, we are expected to treat as divine providence from a benevolent God-entity -- and some of us are brainwashed or deluded enough to play along with that evil and lunatic pretense.

Can you imagine if the FCC had the kind of power the BLM have been given?

Once again, Castle acts as if "the government" is some entity that just popped into being out of nowhere, rather than being the legal entity that represents the people as a whole.

A history of case law. You can't just decide on your own what constitutes ownership. What makes you think there is any such thing as private property? Not saying there isn't, but what's the proof when it's easy to write a few sentences explaining it away, just as you've done now regarding federal property?

It used to be the latter. But as is the case with every government, given enough time, it has rotted into little better than the largest and best-armed criminal syndicate going. What happened to the Roman Empire is happening to the U.S.

Which amounts to the opinions of the Mafia so far as ethical validity is concerned.

"Say, dis is a nice shop you got here. But it's under new management, see. The Family owns it now, see."
"That's illegal!"
"Nah, it's perfectly legal, see. The Family says so. So it's a legal decision, see."

What, do I need a black costume and a piece of stamped aluminum on my chest to make that decision? Or a black robe and a powdered wig? This is where we expose your insane, if commonly held, notion that those things somehow elevate ordinary people into some rarified status which, for absolutely no good reason, puts them in "authority" over the rest of us.

Because there are private individuals. The Federal government is a corporate entity, which is not a person. Not a person = no rights.

So basically, you're just like the liberal idiots who keep shrieking about corporations and ignoring the fact that they're made up of people, only you've chosen to focus your rage on a slightly different type of legal entity.